Ozone Hole fact or fiction?

There has been some development in the ozone hoax. First, it has gone down the oblivion path because the CFC ban made possible for the chemical companies to market their less efficient and more expensive gases, as SUVA or 134A, second, managed to rise a flourishing Freon black market (as everybody knew it will happen), and third, the hole in Antarctica has been growing and disappearing as usual, with no increase or reduction in size – besides of what can be accounted by natural phenomena as sun irradiance variations, Quasi Biennal Oscillation in stratospheric winds, more or less solar wind and consequential less or more cosmic rays, etc. There has not been recorded any UV increase over the Earth’s surface, although some reduction has been recorded, but this is totally related with sunspot number and the variations in Sun’s activity.

Also, there has not been any increase or reduction in skin cancers worldwide, melanomas in cats have not increased in Australia (as if cats enjoyed walking under the Sun!), the ozone hole didn’t open over Kennebunkport in the USA, neither over the North Pole. It seems business is as usual as before the CFC ban. Just some chemical companies got huge profits from the whole scam. The refrigeration industry also made a multibillion business replacing hundred of thousand of refrigeration equipments. The only drawback was the public paid for all this. You, me, and our neighbors.

But there has surfaced some research that was kept ignored by the mainstream media – because it was not “politically correct”, that is, showed there were many holes in the ozone hole theory or ozone destruction by CFCs. The research was made in a joint effort by NASA and Wuppertal.University, Germany, and it was called the Crista-Spas project (http://www.crista.uni-wuppertal.de/) a satellite that took readings from the atmosphere at other angles different from the “straight down” traditional way: they discovered there is a Freon-11 hole inside the ozone hole!. It means there are no CFCs inside the ozone hole in Antarctica.

Wouldn’t this discovery deserve some headlines in the media? Not in our politically correct world of nowadays. The show must go on. There are big implications if the ozone depletion theory is debunked and shown to be a fraud. One of them is Rowland, Crutzen, and Molina would have to return the money from the 1995 Noble Prize in chemistry. And the Nobel institution would be shown to be what really has been converted into: a political tool for geopolitics.
Another link quite useful is a long article on anything you should know about this terrible hoax: “New Scientific Evidence Proves Ozone Depletion Theory False”: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Crista.html

Enjoy the reading.

James R: don’t say it took you two years to read my tutorial! Better late than never! But the odds keeps being 1/infinite as there are infinite directions the scattered photon can go. If you think this is not so, I would like to see the physical explanation for it. I can be wrong. If I am, I will acknowledge it.
 
Last edited:
So, oxygen is thousands of times as stronger a shield against UV radiation than ozone. As the formation of TWO ozone (dwarf) molecules requires the destruction of THREE (Scharzenneger) molecules, we see that any region of atmosphere containing high concentrations of oxygen is more protective than a similar region with high levels of ozone. Actually, UV radiation passes more easily through a layer of ozone than a similar concentration of oxygen. Speaking for laymen: If you wanted to protect a fortress against any enemy, what would you choose: TWO DWARFS of THREE Scharzenneges?. Still more: while oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is about 21%, ozone amounts only to 0,000003 percent (yes, THREE MILLIONTHS percent!). The Ozone layer is worthless as a UV radiation shield.
Click to expand...

UVA consists of wavelengths of 315-380 nm. UVB is 280-315 nm. UVC is 10-280 nm.

The UV absorption specturm of oxygen shows absorbance in the range of 70-250 nm. The spectrum of ozone shows absorbance in the range of 220-320 nm.
 
UVA consists of wavelengths of 315-380 nm. UVB is 280-315 nm. UVC is 10-280 nm.

The UV absorption spectrum of oxygen shows absorbance in the range of 70-250 nm. The spectrum of ozone shows absorbance in the range of 220-320 nm.
Click to expand...
What’s on books and tables must be reviewed sometimes. When logic interferes with accepted concepts, these must be revised and checked again.

Acording to the above information gently provided by Skylark, Oxygen absorbs UV radiation between wavelengths 70 and 250 nm. So it shouldn’t be absorbing UB-V radiation between 280-315 nm, absorption left to ozone (220-320 nm), right?

Ozone is almost nonexistent below 16 km altitude, so, according to the spectrum absorption tables, there is no gas left to absorb UV radiation below those 16 km. But experience and instruments show that UV radiation decreases from those 16 km down to Earth’s surface at an effective rate of 1% for every 50 meters. Now, who in Heaven (or in the sky) is filtering (absorbing) that UV radiation – if oxygen and nitrogen are not absorbing it, and ozone does not exist at those altitudes? The fact is, oxygen and nitrogen absorb most of the UV radiation coming from the Sun. Ozone just plays a very minor role. This has been known for a long time, but the media will never aknowledge it, nor authors of newer textbooks. However, the Encyclopaedia Britannica states that since about 30 years ago, in its Micropaedia, in the ozone issue.

Ozone is merely the consequence of oxygen and nitrogen absorbing UV radiation – like sparks are the consequence of a grinding wheel wearing down a piece of steel. I we were making the same with a piece of brass, we would not see sparks coming from the wheel, but the wearing action is being performed nonetheless, and we couldn’t say there is no wearing down of the brass because we see no sparks. One thing is the cause, another quite different the effect.

Ozone can also absorb UV-B, yes, but the amount absorbed is in proportion to its concentrations: ozone is found in the stratosphere where it is more abundant in the range of 3 millionth percent (0.000003%), while oxygen is present at 21%, nitrogen at 78%, argon at 1%, CO2 at 0.03%, etc. The fact that must be taken into account is what I have posted back in 2002, where the effect of repeated impacts of photons on oxygen (and other gases) molecules leaves molecules in a excited state that a weak photon can finally break apart the atomic bonds.
 
Egads. This makes me realize how long I've been on the forum. I thread I participated in has been ressurected two days before its one year anniversary. Scary.

UVA consists of wavelengths of 315-380 nm. UVB is 280-315 nm. UVC is 10-280 nm.

The UV absorption specturm of oxygen shows absorbance in the range of 70-250 nm. The spectrum of ozone shows absorbance in the range of 220-320 nm.
Click to expand...
So all radiation 70-320nm is absorbed. 10-70nm and 320-380nm are not absorbed. Total is 67.56% of the radiation is absorbed. Oxygen absorbs 40.54%, Ozone absorbs 18.91%, they overlap over 8.10%.
 
http://www.thespectroscopynet.com/Educational/Extreme_uv.htm

The graph on this wesite show something interesting: the high absorption spectra of oxygen and water vapor. It says:<dir>“Air does not transmit wavelengths below about 190 nm, because oxygen and water vapour are highly absorbent at these short wavelengths. Some of the strongest emission lines for some very important elements are in this region, notably H I 121.5 nm, O I 130.2 nm, Cl I 133.5 nm & 134.7 nm, N I 149.2 nm, C I 156.1 nm & 165.7 nm, P I 177.4 nm & 178.2 nm and S I 180.7 nm, where I means the neutral atom.”</dir><center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-8/spectro.gif></center><dir>“To use these lines we need to eliminate oxygen and water vapour from both the spectrometer and the optical path to the emission source. This can be achieved either by evacuating the optical system or by purging the system with a gas not containing oxygen or water vapour, the obvious choice is nitrogen, and today about 50% of all new spectrometers working below 200 nm are evacuated and about 50% nitrogen-purged.”</dir>It seems that oxygen absorbs much more UV “than previously believed” – as it is usual to say nowadays when trying to scare people.

The absence of ozone in the high troposphere (16-20 km altitude) and the progressive reduction of UV levels as it nears Earth’s surface is an evidence that UV radiation is being “absorbed” by oxygen and nitrogen without the molecule dissociation seen in the stratosphere. Other less abundant gases contributes to this absorption, but to a much lesser degree. Oxygen and nitrogen molecules when hit by a UV-B photon with not enough energy to split it apart, merely start to vibrate until they fall down to a lower quantum energy level and release their energy (in the form of a photon) at an angle determined by the wavelength of the incoming photon.

Gifted: in your calculations you forgot to include the absorption of water vapor that is extremely high.
 
oct_ozone.gif


I got the above from http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/ Looks like a pretty good presentation, award winning in fact.
 
Yeah, I've seen that too. Notice how it stops at 91... Why did they stop? Did their theory start to fall apart at that point?

Edit: Yup, exact same site I've already been too. Check out the latest research page. 1994... :eek:
 
I had, don't know if I still do, a poster that showed monthly images for like a decade. Very interesting becuase you can see the yearly fluctuations.
 
Seen that one too. I think it's telling that it's difficult to find a yearly comparison for the latest years. I even searched on that page for other years so that I could see them on different tabs one after the other, but it's only the very recent ones that are shown visually like this.
 
That's the whole point of why I raised this thread from the dead. I have heard that it is at least an exagerration. I want to see proof either way, but I can't find anything substantial. Or perhaps, what I find is too substantial, but not in a way that I can understand... ;) Why isn't it mentioned much anymore? Why are there no comparisons between the ozone hole of the 80's and 90's and the ozone hole now. Edufer's claims are based on the actual properties of ozone absorbing uv and not the extent of the hole, so while it's interesting, doesn't answer my questions.


Edit: By the way, that's another site I had looked at already. I liked the animations. It's interesting how the ozone levels jump so radically at times, up and down. And again, only the most recent data is available in such a manner. The older data is obscured.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is mentioned much anymore because the world wide ban on known ozone destruction chemicals appears to be working. No problem means no news, still, use sun screen.

I don't place much credibility to any of Edufer's posts any more and basically don't read them. Did you actually read all of that? Don't trust a thing there and go find your own data. I don't think someone who floods a thread with an avalanche of words is much into communication, more like coercion. Check out his profile and his web site, he purports to have the answers to many controversies. The opinions there seem to share a common theme, a suck up to corporate hegemony, past and present. He really is quite an education. I thought that kind of pap only came from corporate sponsored propaganda manufacturers but this world never ceases to amaze me as to the extent that people can lose their integrity.
 
I did read through a lot of it. I don't understand all the physics involved, but I find the lack of serious rebuttal. There have been a few interjections here and there, but overall his posts have stood.

But, as I said, my concern was originally more with the size of the ozone hole not the properties of ozone and the like. I had hoped that some who are in the know might interject with relevant data and links. So far, nothing I haven't seen before. No offense, thanks for trying. :)

On Edufer's behalf, I would posit this as a motivation for his ideals. He lives in South America. And wishes to see his country thrive. The problem is that we in the industrialized countries are now trying to tell the other countries how to act in an ecologically sound manner, but we didn't have these rules when we industrialized. It is in his interest to promote his ideals. I cannot comment on the rightness or wrongness of them. I leave that to people who understand the physics. But I do understand his motivations.

The thing that gets me is that from what I've seen there seems to be a deliberate obfuscation of data that makes it difficult to determine the extent of the ozone hole problem. Why are there no easily understood comparisons? They were all over the place a few years ago. You couldn't turn around without the ozone hole being shoved in your face. Now there is a silence and seemingly deliberate smearing of data. I suppose to get any answers, I'm going to have to pore over reams of obscure data and try to come up with my own answer. Unfortunately, not being educated in this science, the chances are good that I will draw the wrong conclusions.

Such is life...
 
Edufer's claims are based on the actual properties of ozone absorbing uv and not the extent of the hole, so while it's interesting, doesn't answer my questions.
Click to expand...

Invert_nexus, if the hole extension is what worries you, there has nothing to worry about. With minor variations, the hole is about the same since it was first discovered, back in 1956 by Gordon Dobson at Haley base and, on the other side of Antarctica, Leroy and Rigaud in Dumont D’Urville French station.

Press releases keep informing about the hole getting bigger than ever (usually bigger than continental US) but if you compare its size and concentration levels with other factors (Quasi Biennial Oscillation, number of sunspots, etc) you’ll see these natural phenomena mark the trend for the hole’s size.

I know Mr. Chips will love this website: http://www.theozonehole.com/ I guess this is the site you have been looking for. They have graphs for the entire year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In the following link, there are graphs for the whole month of June 2003, and graphs of the hole until June 13th, 2004. Quite updated this website. If you spend a lot of time comparing those graphs, you’ll start to see the light. Don’t thank me.

If you watch those graphs when the hole is at its maximum size, you’ll see that over Patagonia (especially Tierra del Fuego) ozone levels are higher than in the rest of Argentina and Chile, and much higher than over the Equator. Amazing? Not at all. Remember what I said about the research our scientists at Buenos Aires University did on “mini-ozone holes” over Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego? I will repeat it for you:<dir>"The average solar energy falling over the Earth's surface is about 1,000 watts/m2 between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn (23,5 N - 23,5 S latitude). UV-B takes care of about 350 watts/m2, and UV-A the rest (650 watts/m2). When Al Gore scared people with his claims that "sheeps in Patagonia were getting blind by the UV radiation coming through the ozone hole, and babies in Punta Arenas, Chile, were developing melanomas", the press (and the people) went wild.

But then, scientists measured at noon the UV-B radiation coming through a mini-ozone hole in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, back in Septemeber 1997, (Drs. Isidoro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martinez, Buenos Aires National University, Laboratory of Geophysics), their Robertson-Berger spectrometer recorded the incoming UV radiation: 150 watts/m2. At the same time of the day, in Buenos Aires there was a "shower" of 300 watts/m2, this is, normal levels.

Orlansky and Martinez said: "Typical average values of UV radiation are 300 watts/m2 in Buenos Aires, about 100 - 150 watts/m2 in Tierra del Fuego, and 100 watts and less in Antarctica, right under the ozone hole. The UV levels below the ozone hole do not reach half the values found in Buenos Aires."

“I swear to God that there are not blind sheeps in the Pampas of Buenos Aires. Why did Al Gore tell that lie? Because he's a moron. The blind sheeps in Patagonia were the result of the eruption of the Hudson volcano back in 1971 (that killed hundred of thousands of sheeps, covernig them with ashes that got soaked with rain water, making the ashes a cement-like coffin).”

“The babies in Punta Arenas? Babies don't sunbath, especially in Punta Arenas where the sun is so low over the horizon that it would NEVER give anyone a sun tan (leave aside a skin cancer), and temperature is so low that it would be criminal to take a baby out of the living room. But, have you ever found something more gullible than a sensationalistic journalist? They buy and eat garbage...”</dir>If you are still not convinced about the lack of importance of the ozone layer as a shield against UV, then read the following link: <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/AmazingOzone.html>Amazing Calculations</a>, and <a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozo/vortex.html">Interesting Facts About the Antarctic Polar Vortex</a>
 
I am curious about that now, Inverted Nexus. I've never really seen such a study. I'll dig around and see if I can find that poster, though it's only part of the eighties as I recall.

There is a large amount of evidence for the corporate conspiracy theories, and I'd guess that they're not entirely innocent. This is science that got mixed up in politics and economics. That distorts things. The lack of readily available easy to read data is another concern.

It more or less seems to have died except for things like this thread.
 
Invert_nexus, have you read the Cristas-Spas information? Have you visited the Wuppertal Univiersity website with all the scientific work done there (in collaboration with the German Space Agency and NASA). There is no obfuscation there. There is valuable, peer reviewd science.

And did you, Mr. Chips, understand anything on that website? Could you comment on those scientific findings? Or you will just keep on your usual ad hominems attacks (about my integrity) in order to dismiss my information?

You said, referring to me: "I thought that kind of pap only came from corporate sponsored propaganda manufacturers but this world never ceases to amaze me as to the extent that people can lose their integrity."

Had you taken the time to explore our website, you would have seen that we are against corporations, especially American and European multinationals. And we are for the truth in science, against hoaxes, myths and frauds. And no one pays me a cent for what I speak or write. I am stupid enough as to do it just for kicks, or getting Gr$$npeace mad.
 
Yeah, that's another one of the sites I've looked at. You see the problem is that the information is portrayed in technical charts and graphs and I don't understand half of it. I had hoped to find some nice images showing the hole like the picture Mr. Chips posted above. I think I'm going to have to resign myself to actually studying these charts and graphs and things and try to decipher what it's saying. Unfortunately, even if I do buck the odds and manage to come to some kind of understanding of the data, my friend will never understand and I wonder if I will be able to translate into terms he would be able to understand. A picture speaks a thousand words, they say.

By the way, is that mitosyfraudes site yours? That was another site I found on my web search. Funny that the same sites keep coming up. I guess that says something about the relevance of the sites. (Either that, or everyone is googling their data like I was. :p) I resign myself to trying to come to grips with what is presented and not cry for a better image.
 
Invert_Nexus: yes, that is our website from the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology. Non profit ONG. And we have past the point of 1500 visitors a day, for a total of more than 720,000 visitoris in 2 years. Not bad for a $12.50 hosting website, eh? Mr. Chips thinks we are paid by EXXON.

I guess you have visited the website I mentioned (www.theozonehole.com) and read some of it. In this page, regarding the 2003 Hole, they tell a most fantastic story: http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm
<dir>“The area and population affected including the Argentinean city of Ushaia which has a population of 30,000 and Punta Arenas, Chile which has a population of 120,000 are all at risk during this time period.”

“The public should avoid going outside during the peak hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to avoid exposure to the UV rays. If people do go outside during these hours they should wear protective sunscreen and if possible a hat or head covering and sunglasses with a uv rating.”

“The Ozone hole has reached land and population areas in Argentina, Chile and The Falkland Islands since the early 1990's. Ozone levels drop down as much as 70% in some areas. The protective level of ozone has dropped below 150 dobson units in some areas.

It has reached further north at times affecting the towns of Rio Gallegos, Puerto Santa Cruz, and Rio Grande affecting an additional 200,000 people.”</dir>Do you remember what Martínez and Orlansky said about the UV levels falling over Ushuaia and Punta Arenas during a mini-hole occurrence over those cities?

Orlansky and Martinez said: "Typical average values of UV radiation are 300 watts/m2 in Buenos Aires, about 100 - 150 watts/m2 in Tierra del Fuego, and 100 watts and less in Antarctica, right under the ozone hole. The UV levels below the ozone hole do not reach half the values found in Buenos Aires."

You have seen how the people in that website talk about percentages and do not provide hard figures on UV radiation at the surface, in watt/m2, as they should. If they recommend people to not go outside when they are getting 150 watts/m2, what would they recommend to people in Los Angeles, Miami, Sidney, Madrid, Tel Aviv, etc, that receive 300 watts/m2 or more at the same moment? Can you see how these people is lying to you? Can you trust these people? And can you trust Mr. Chips, their partner in deceit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top